Talk:Hurricane Hilary

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 August 2023 (2)[edit]

Please add under the impact section that 6.00 in (152 mm) of rain fell in Bristlecone, setting a preliminary state record. Source: https://x.com/nwswpc/status/1693460051946807403?s=46&t=w8Gp3NcH6th9VzdY5gs4Pw (I know it’s a tweet but it’s directly from the WPC) 2610:130:109:12:6DCE:2418:948B:2085 (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE It was actually 9.2 inches. Also, Oregon, Idaho and Montana set records (3.29, 3.00 and 2.30 respectively). Please add all this information to the article.2610:130:109:12:6DCE:2418:948B:2085 (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 22:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton: https://x.com/nwswpc/status/1693843314368467074?s=46&t=w8Gp3NcH6th9VzdY5gs4Pw 173.23.45.183 (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Twitter is not a reliable source. This doesn't prove anything. LoveHop123 (talk) 00:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
exclamation mark  This, from NBC News: "four states — Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Oregon — broke their rainfall records,[1]. Key storm impacts and reliably sourced. Drdpw (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reinstating edit request because it wasn’t added to the article yet. (It also needs to be updated on List of wettest tropical cyclones in the United States.) 173.23.45.183 (talk) 01:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edit  Pending – Drdpw (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drdpw Are you going to make the edit? It’s been over an hour since you put pending. 173.23.45.183 (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do not be so impatient. Drdpw (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In general, it is considered impolite to close an edit request saying pending and then not do it. Normally I wouldn’t care so much, but this affects rainfall records in 4(!) states and so is important to be added ASAP. 173.23.45.183 (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your impatience and expectation of immediate request fulfillment is what's impolite. Please curb it in the future. Drdpw (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Drdpw (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry.[edit]

I'm sorry for all the trouble. Also, deleting the source was an accident and I was trying to get it back for you. I'll just stay out of this discussion. Thanks. LoveHop123 (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there is anything else you want me to delete (including warnings on your talk page regarding this article), let me know on my talk page. Again, I'm very sorry. User:LoveHop123 01:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated earthquake[edit]

@Drdpw: If an earthquake is brought up on an article about a hurricane, I think it's important to unambiguously explain that it's just a coincidence, and why it is. I can't really imagine a situation where it's worth mentioning an earthquake happened at the same time, but *not* worth mentioning that they're unrelated. I've personally seen several people guessing they were related, so a debunk doesn't seem frivolous to me, personally. Of course it's obvious to us that it's not related, but I think it's not fair to assume everyone reading the page will implicitly know that already. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When mention of the earthquake was initially included in the article, the paragraph also noted a decade-old research study on the possible cause/effect relationship between hurricanes and earthquakes, and implying that there might have been one in this instance. Lengthy discussions ensued (up page). I proposed the current paragraph as a compromise. You make a good point in favor of mentioning that the two were unrelated. Has the USGS issued a statement to the effect that they were not related? Drdpw (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The USGS has not issued an official statement to that effect on this specific earthquake, but having read through the discussion above I'll address the points brought up. (Lovett 2013) covers aftershocks of a recent (and confidently unrelated) earthquake, which he notes are "[mostly] less than magnitude 2" - and yes, there is evidence that low-magnitude earthquakes & aftershocks can be related to storm systems. Furthermore, the cited Palm Beach Post article, which seems to be mainly referencing This paper is not talking about conventional earthquakes per se, but instead long, low-frequency seismic tremors which are too slow to be felt and behave fundamentally differently to more conventional, shorter-duration, higher-frequency earthquakes. Also, said study only detects an 'equivalent' magnitude of 3.5, which is a bit removed from the 40x more energetic 5.1. This discussion with geologist science communicator Lucy Jones does not cite its sources but she reiterates the statement that nobody has ever found evidence that individual storm events can cause major (generally informally defined as M>3) earthquakes. This statement from the USGS says that there is no known link between any weather system and an increased/decreased risk of earthquakes aside from the aforementioned tremors. This is the only study I can find claiming any sort of link to major earthquakes - and even this study rests on some shaky footing, calling certain earthquakes related to multiple direct-hit category 5 hurricanes from years prior and the supposed large-scale long-term changes in the topography and water table of the region. It seems safe to say that if they only found a weak link with that, then single tropical storms meaningfully causing major earthquakes within hours of their arrival would stick out like a sore thumb in their analysis. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Damages[edit]

How much damages did the storm do? [2] The headline of FOX5 says that there was minimal damage but then later says it was just normal (and it also might only be tallying Baja California's and San Diego's damages). While looking up "Hurricane Hilary damages" brings up article after article describing catastrophic damages. ✶Mitch199811✶ 15:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitch199811 AccuWeather gave a preliminary estimate of $7 to $9 billion in damage and economic loss in the United States. SF Chronicle reported this detail with attribution. I am not sure if AccuWeather is reliable for this especially since other preliminary damage calculations published so far such as this and this do not indicate total damage that high. Should we add this or wait for more reports to come out? StellarHalo (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The community determined years ago that AccuWeather is not a reliable source for damage estimates as they have consistently been wildly inaccurate (sometimes by a factor of 10 or more). The most reliable we have for Hilary at the moment are the assessed $126 million in Riverside County and overall $600 million from insurance companies. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we hold off until Hilary makes NOAA's list once calculations are finalized and total costs determined. Drdpw (talk) 00:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Drdpw: it doesn't appear the Hilary will be added to the billion-dollar disaster list. Idalia has been added which was after Hilary. I think it's fine to use reliable sources to add non-NOAA damage totals until one is available. At the very least the $126 million is directly from Riverside County Government so it's fine to add. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most definitely. Drdpw (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Canada[edit]

This storm made it to British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, shouldn't it merit some mention? --64.16.13.2 (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It might. Upper-level energy from Hilary absorbed by the jet stream was undoubtedly pulled that far north, but has the regional Storm Prediction Centre made mention of Hilary-related winds and rain reaching there? Drdpw (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Damage totals[edit]

We really got to put one in soon. It’s off the noaa billions list, and Aon likely doesn’t have an update until January at earliest. We have the $600m estimate - should we put that in? 70.23.39.2 (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The $600 million estimate has already been added to the article. JayTee⛈️ 17:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Hilary/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 04:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Dylan620 (talk · contribs) 22:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have this article watchlisted and have been noticing the nominator's work on it; looking forward to reviewing, which I should be able to begin within the next few days. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dylan620 (talk · contribs), looking forward to the review. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose: This article is (predictably, given your track record) well-written overall, I have no concerns with neutrality, and it's certainly comprehensive enough for GA, but there are some kinks that I think should be worked out. Prose review on hold: see concerns below.
    • Two paragraphs in the lede start the exact same way (In Mexico, the hurricane...)
    • The origins of Hilary was – either 'origin' or 'were'
    • By the time of its peak, Hilary commenced a 48 hour period of intensification following its development. – the phrasing here seems to imply that Hilary continued to intensify after it peaked in intensity. Maybe something like "by the time of its peak, Hilary had been rapidly intensifying for a continuous 48-hour period following its formation"?
    • The combined system, which included the remnants of Hilary continued moving through the western United States, eventually crossing into Canada. – this is a little clunky. I'd add a comma after 'Hilary', replace the one after 'States' with an 'and', and replace 'crossing' with 'crossed'.
    • The first issued a flood watch on August 17 – the first what?
    • by President Joe Biden, and Biden urged – 'and Biden' -> 'who'
    • Local states of emergency were declared in Los Angeles, Palm Springs, and in Indio – I don't think the second 'in' is necessary.
  • You're lucky I didn't have another "in" before "in in Indio" XD. Fixed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The phrase strong enough to knock down a few trees appears twice a couple sentences apart.
    • beneficial with helping extinguish -> "beneficial, helping to extinguish"
    • I think it may be worth mentioning that Hilary was operationally assessed to have peaked with 145 mph winds, especially since it's mentioned in multiple sources.
  • Added, plus added the bit of NHC anticipating some slight further strengthening. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources: I checked over 40 sources (refs 1, 3, 12, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 29, 35, 38, 40, 42, 44, 50, 51, 56, 62, 67, 71, 75, 81, 88, 89, 94, 102, 107, 108, 111, 112, 115, 120, 125, 128, 129, 130, 132, 136, 143, 148, and 149; numbers are from this revision). I'm overall not too worried about the veracity of the information here, but there are some inconsistencies that I would like to be addressed. Source review on hold: see concerns below.
    • Refs 24 and 88 (and any other Spanish-language refs) should have |lang=es added as parameters.
    • Refs 29 and 94 are dead links. I might try running IABot after I hit 'publish'; hopefully that would resolve this issue.
  • I will need to find other sources for this, which I'll work on. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 35: Given the size of the cited document, inserting page numbers after each citation (perhaps by using {{rp}}) would be helpful here.
  • @Hurricanehink: I was going by the PDF reader, which says that there are 29 pages – doesn't that count for page numbers? Historically in this sort of situation I've used PDF page numbers by default unless overriden by explicitly stated numbers on the pages themselves. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I added the page numbers based on what page it was in order. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thumbs up icon Thanks mate – I think we're good to go. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Refs 115 and 149 should have |url-access=limited added as parameters, since the sites hosting those sources allow visitors to access only a certain amount of content before requiring payment.
    • Ref 130 seems to contradict refs 128 and 129; was it a microburst that hit the Fresno area, or was it a tornado?
  • It was a microburst, not a tornado. It was initially reported as a tornado, and the initial reports included some damage information that was relevant, even if they got the tornado part wrong. I emailed the NWS to confirm that it was indeed a microburst, which is backed up by NCDC. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images: All images present are appropriately licensed for either public domain (with several of those being from the US government) or Creative Commons, and contribute encyclopedic value to the article. No concerns with image sourcing. I would like for alt text to be added, but as that would be getting into FAC territory, I will not factor it into this review. Image review passes.
  • Stability: Until I removed a single parenthesis within the past couple hours, there had been no edits to the article since April 26. Stability review passes.
  • Copyright: Earwig returns are based on phrases for which there is little room for creative expression, and I could not detect any issues on my own. Copyright review passes.
This is very close to meeting the GA criteria, but needs just a smidgen more work to reach that mark. Putting on hold for now. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dylan. The only thing I need to get to is finding alternative sources for refs 29 and 94, which I'll get to later today. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That won't be necessary, as IABot fortunately did find working archives for those refs. I just need something to be clarified further up before I pass the article. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, with the latest changes, I am happy to pass this article. Excellent work again, HH. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review summary[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Hilary&oldid=1225029126"